In this article, I would like to share my experiences and learnings that I have had while working with the community for village reconstruction in the earthquake hit regions of Gujarat. I take this opportunity to share a few of the questions that keep hitting me on my face...or rather my mind!

The obvious question is about the suitability or validity of applying lessons learnt from a program based in a cultural setting, evolved from particular needs of that community to a community with a different set of needs and cultural background. One could answer that, to be fair, every situation needs customised, simultaneous and co-ordinated actions. Much depends on how we learn, analyse, and prescribe.

This realisation would help us to analyse our actions and transform our approach, if required. For anything to be a success, the two paradigms of "things" and "people" have to transparently co-exist and function correlatively. The problem is identifying a process which enables that.

Another question I often ask myself is about the role of power. Is power an asset or a disability? I would believe that in terms of learning, power is a disability. Power can be seen as an asset, but it also means "getting things done". This may lead the professional(s) to impose their empirically true and morally right views, which more than often are neither true nor right for the needs of the beneficiary (are they?) community. Let us look at a situation, which our field team was exposed to, while working with EFFICOR in Nagavaladiya village, Anjar Block to understand this problem better.

Picture a very typical Gujarat village with obvious economic and social classes. Post earthquake, the same village has been reduced into a pile of debris. A village reconstruction committee has been formed with representation from every social group in the village. This committee is responsible for final decisions taken on behalf of the village community, and signs every such decision on paper to record its acceptance. The following conversation took between our filed team and committee members:

Our team (to village committee members)
"Please identify two families whose houses should be constructed first."

Village committee members (replies back)
"We want the program to begin construction from the village Pundit’s house. They are two brothers, and both their houses can be taken up for construction."

Our team
"We can do that, but how about building for someone who doesn’t have anywhere to live-in right now? Not even a tent!"

Village committee members
"They too will get a house eventually. If the Pundit is happy, so will be God."

We as "taught" professionals wanted to start the program by constructing for a widow who lost her husband and two sons to the earthquake. As helpless as she was, she had no one to support her and her little daughter. But the village community unanimously wanted a more auspicious start for the program, and selected the village "Pundit", whose family was actually better off financially than most of the village community.

Coming from a different background, I could not relate to their preferences initially, but soon enough realised what the "power" game had done to my mind without even touching me! I understood that what the local community wants and needs is often not what the professionals often comprehend.

The following comment from community members further expresses the difference in beliefs and understanding of community and the professionals. "No one except the Government does anything for free. What is your company’s cut (profit in %) in this program?"

The villagers could not relate to the idea of a not-for-profit NGO, as I couldn’t to their considering house construction for the village Pundit more important than for a homeless widow.

Do you ever find yourself wondering if it is right to aggravate somebody’s expectations…to make him or her dream about things too far-fetched? Village meetings can often get so interesting that, ironical as it sounds, it may get out of hand. Just as "no-action" may lead to unrest among the community, non-mediated village meetings can often "force" professionals to promise actions raising expectations of the community to levels that can not be met. This is especially true, when an "upper class" member of the village community makes a "request". This person can be a local politician or a well-respected authority in the region.

Looking back at the initial phase of the program, it may be wrong to say that most of the problems faced by us were either due to high expectations of the community or because of political imbalance within the village community. This division in community can put the program off-track and may often result in program termination (as it very nearly did in our case).

Based on the experiences, the author has attempted to systematise the "what was" to "what should have been". Important learning's at every stage have been presented in a flowchart format on the next page, for easier understanding of the steps involved in the order of their occurrence. If the readers find this format interesting, the group will attempt to share the learning's during project implementation and issues that we faced during house construction in near future.